Contingency in Dialogic Constitutionalism. An Analysis from the Depenalisation of Abortion in Argentina

Authors

Keywords:

Deliberative democracy, Dialogue, Fundamental rights, Popular participation, Judicial review

Abstract

Roberto Gargarella’s recent book, Law as a conversation among equals, invites us to reflect on a trend that has emerged in the recent years: the so–called dialogic constitutionalism. This trend is characterized by a defense of deliberative democracy, as well as by the criticism of the idea that rights are best protected in the courts. In this framework, the argument I intend to support is that dialogic constitutionalism, as theorized by Roberto Gargarella is not oriented towards protecting the contingency of politics through counter–democratic institutions, but rather defends institutions that are prone to inclusive dialogue and sensitive to such contingency.

Author Biography

Carlos Ignacio Giuffre, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (España)

Docente e Investigador Predoctoral (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Master in Global Rule of Law and Constitutional Democracy (Università degli Studi di Genova y Universitat de Girona), Máster en Derecho Constitucional (Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, y Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo), Especialista en Derecho Constitucional (UCA) y Abogado (Universidad de Mendoza).

Published

2022-06-09

How to Cite

Giuffre, C. I. (2022). Contingency in Dialogic Constitutionalism. An Analysis from the Depenalisation of Abortion in Argentina. República Y Derecho, 7(7), 1–22. Retrieved from https://ojs3.derecho.uncu.edu.ar/index.php/revista/article/view/245